• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

Story, Monday December 11, 2017

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I would say that it shows how no amount of money can make bad idea good.

But as you point out above, almost any kind of research may lead to unexpected results that can prove startlingly fruitful.

16 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

(I would assume it did but that idiot ignored the report).

Sadly, idiots have a near infinite capacity for ignoring either sense or inconvenient facts. :(

Well, sadly in the general case. I have nothing in particular against Nazis wasting their efforts in utterly fruitless labours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Drasvin said:

A lot of research came about not from people seeking a solution to a problem, but from trying to better understand how the world works and then seeking a problem for their solution. Or the research was a side-effect of other research. A better solution existing would limit proliferation of the new technologies, but whether magic were a truly better alternative would require answering questions of production and cost in addition to effectiveness. And typically, costs of a solution weigh much more heavily than effectiveness of the solution.

True. I was assuming that for the early competition between magic and technology, magic was more cost effective; this would mean that there would be less incentive to make use of the knowledge gained from trying to understand the world, at least so long as the initial technological solution was not much better than the magical one. Meanwhile, if no one (with the resources to pull it off) was visionary enough to predict that a particular form of technology could surpass magic, there wouldn't be research being done for the sake of developing that technology either. And as a lot of technology builds upon older technologies, many inventions would never be made simply because the technologies required to make that invention were never invented (or they were invented and then forgotten).

Of course, eventually scientists would probably come to questions they couldn't answer with magic alone, and would need to develop the technology required to assist them, and once they did that more commonplace uses for the technology would be found. So the world probably wouldn't be technologically stuck in the 18th century or whenever; however some technologies would never be invented, and others would be significantly delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

And so forth. I should in passing mention the Technomancers of Mage: the Ascension. In Mage, part of what makes magic possible is general belief. The Technomancers essentially won the Ascension War by making humanity believe in the laws of science they had painstakingly crafted. 'Technological' advances become possible by convincing people that they are new inventions. In short, that world posits that technology is magic, we just don't know it is. (Even though the Technomancers are cast as villains, I kind of like them. In order for their magic to work, the population must be well educated and be able to partake freely in the marvels the Technomancers create. All the other magical Traditions are by far more elitist. Sure, they are 'more sensitive of the needs of Gaia.' They would also have all the rest of us live in muddy hovels and be ignorant so we can more easily believe in their magical marvels. No thanks.

Ah, Mage. I always had a twist to my White Wolf characters, for various reasons. My favorite mage, that I played the most, was a pantheist in the Celestial Chorus. The Chorus is extremely biased toward monotheism (doesn't much care what name you use for your one God)... and I justified it and made it work. Another character I wrote up some backstory for, but never played, was a quantum-mechanics-based Dreamspeaker. Dreamspeakers are stereotypically tribal shamans and witch doctors; you don't expect to find one who understands nuclear physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Ah, Mage. I always had a twist to my White Wolf characters, for various reasons. My favorite mage, that I played the most, was a pantheist in the Celestial Chorus. The Chorus is extremely biased toward monotheism (doesn't much care what name you use for your one God)... and I justified it and made it work. Another character I wrote up some backstory for, but never played, was a quantum-mechanics-based Dreamspeaker. Dreamspeakers are stereotypically tribal shamans and witch doctors; you don't expect to find one who understands nuclear physics.

I've always loved playing the atypical characters, and atypical games in general.  I recall one rather memorable Elfquest game at GenCon, a couple of decades ago, where all of the player characters were five years old.  Except me.  I was two.  Made for some great role-playing!  The Toon scavenger hunt with my sister playing Twoflower and his Luggage had several amusing characters drawn from TV and movies.  I think the Spock-expy finally losing his cool and doing the classic cartoon mouth-open-wide-as-whole-head scream-that-blows-everything-backwards-away-as-if-a-hurricane-hit was the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I would say that it shows how no amount of money can make bad idea good.

But as you point out above, almost any kind of research may lead to unexpected results that can prove startlingly fruitful.

Obviously. It's not like there is any conflict between those two. There can be all sort of unexpected fruitful results obtained while trying to make the bad idea good, it's just unlikely to MAKE that bad idea good.

11 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(I would assume it did but that idiot ignored the report).

Sadly, idiots have a near infinite capacity for ignoring either sense or inconvenient facts. :(

Well, sadly in the general case. I have nothing in particular against Nazis wasting their efforts in utterly fruitless labours.

The Nazis research in astrology was especially good idea in this regard. Considering astrology was PROVEN to not work in ancient Greece (or Rome?) already.

8 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

True. I was assuming that for the early competition between magic and technology, magic was more cost effective; this would mean that there would be less incentive to make use of the knowledge gained from trying to understand the world, at least so long as the initial technological solution was not much better than the magical one. Meanwhile, if no one (with the resources to pull it off) was visionary enough to predict that a particular form of technology could surpass magic, there wouldn't be research being done for the sake of developing that technology either. And as a lot of technology builds upon older technologies, many inventions would never be made simply because the technologies required to make that invention were never invented (or they were invented and then forgotten).

Sir Isaac Newton was one of most inventive researchers, likely genius etc. He lived in time where it wasn't exactly clear if magic does or doesn't work but he was very interested in understanding the world. He did enormous amount of research in fields of optic, gravity, mechanics, astronomy, alchemy and natural philosophy. He is known for his breaking discoveries in optic, gravity, mathematics and mechanics. That was NOT because he didn't spend time or effort on alchemy - he did, he just didn't get any results.

If magic would prove to be more effective to use but harder to understand the world through it, there would still be technology research. If magic would prove to be effective in understanding the world, the technological research could build upon understanding based in magic.

Sure there would be differences, however it would be hard to predict which ones. I don't think that any area would get significantly behind BECAUSE lot of technology builds upon older technologies - like, they might get to something from different direction than we did but not so much later. The differences in what technology would become commonplace would be bigger.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Obviously. It's not like there is any conflict between those two. There can be all sort of unexpected fruitful results obtained while trying to make the bad idea good, it's just unlikely to MAKE that bad idea good.

Indeed! Similarly, there can be research done into a good (or at least possible) idea which is not likely to bear fruitful results. Consider the large number of attempts at heavier-than-air flight which involved airframes that flapped their wings, some of them muscle powered. Heavier-than-air flight is indeed possible but you kind of need to have the math back up your theory before you can put it into practice. (Since none of these 'airframes' could ever possibly fly, maybe 'groundframes' would be a better word for them?)

38 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Sir Isaac Newton was one of most inventive researchers, likely genius etc. He lived in time where it wasn't exactly clear if magic does or doesn't work but he was very interested in understanding the world. He did enormous amount of research in fields of optic, gravity, mechanics, astronomy, alchemy and natural philosophy. He is known for his breaking discoveries in optic, gravity, mathematics and mechanics. That was NOT because he didn't spend time or effort on alchemy - he did, he just didn't get any results.

The alchemists in Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork actually did get results. Usually these mainly consisted of turning gold into less gold.

39 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

If magic would prove to be more effective to use but harder to understand the world through it, there would still be technology research. If magic would prove to be effective in understanding the world, the technological research could build upon understanding based in magic.

Hrm. I think we just entered a philosophical paradox here. Magic is an unexplainable force. If we use it to understand the world, we would have to concede that we have no explanation for how we arrived at the understanding. However, if we manage to break down magic to an explainable and quantifiable force that follows knowable rules, it would no longer be magic. How did Agatha Heterodyne put it? 'Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from SCIENCE!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Indeed! Similarly, there can be research done into a good (or at least possible) idea which is not likely to bear fruitful results. Consider the large number of attempts at heavier-than-air flight which involved airframes that flapped their wings, some of them muscle powered. Heavier-than-air flight is indeed possible but you kind of need to have the math back up your theory before you can put it into practice. (Since none of these 'airframes' could ever possibly fly, maybe 'groundframes' would be a better word for them?)

The alchemists in Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork actually did get results. Usually these mainly consisted of turning gold into less gold.

Hrm. I think we just entered a philosophical paradox here. Magic is an unexplainable force. If we use it to understand the world, we would have to concede that we have no explanation for how we arrived at the understanding. However, if we manage to break down magic to an explainable and quantifiable force that follows knowable rules, it would no longer be magic. How did Agatha Heterodyne put it? 'Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from SCIENCE!'

Or how about the way Florence Ambrose explained it?

'Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Obviously. It's not like there is any conflict between those two. There can be all sort of unexpected fruitful results obtained while trying to make the bad idea good, it's just unlikely to MAKE that bad idea good.

Indeed! Similarly, there can be research done into a good (or at least possible) idea which is not likely to bear fruitful results. Consider the large number of attempts at heavier-than-air flight which involved airframes that flapped their wings, some of them muscle powered. Heavier-than-air flight is indeed possible but you kind of need to have the math back up your theory before you can put it into practice. (Since none of these 'airframes' could ever possibly fly, maybe 'groundframes' would be a better word for them?)

You don't NEED math but it helps avoid lot of experimenting of the "doomed to fail" kind. Obviously, all those airframes moved way too slow for their weight. The research in ornithopters was quite good, only problem was the move from smaller models to bigger ones.

I actually remember reading about one flying machine based on those which was able to fly because it was enchanted to break square-cube law.

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The alchemists in Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork actually did get results. Usually these mainly consisted of turning gold into less gold.

That can be hardly called breaking results in area of alchemy, considering other professions can do it just as well.

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If magic would prove to be more effective to use but harder to understand the world through it, there would still be technology research. If magic would prove to be effective in understanding the world, the technological research could build upon understanding based in magic.

Hrm. I think we just entered a philosophical paradox here. Magic is an unexplainable force. If we use it to understand the world, we would have to concede that we have no explanation for how we arrived at the understanding. However, if we manage to break down magic to an explainable and quantifiable force that follows knowable rules, it would no longer be magic. How did Agatha Heterodyne put it? 'Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from SCIENCE!'

37 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

The point is, once we have analyzed the magic to the point where we understand how it works, it isn't magic anymore.

This is actually limitation of our language. There is magic as unexplainable force, and there is energy which can be classified as type of magic.

Also, indistinguishable doesn't mean identical.

The word "magitech" is usually used for inventions based on energy which can be classified as type of magic but analyzed enough to not being unexplainable.

Although it's quite possible even people from world where both sufficiently analyzed magic and technology are used in everyday live would be unable to distinguish those two from each other without advanced education. Also, lot of common invention may be combining those two.

(Meanwhile, Cargo cult is example of what happens if you try to apply the kind of "reasoning" traditionally used in magic on normal technology.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Either way works. The point is, once we have analyzed the magic to the point where we understand how it works, it isn't magic anymore.

Ah... there's understanding how it works, and then there's understanding why it works.

If we know for a fact, incontrovertibly proven by repeated tests by many different people, that chanting "ooga booga boo" at a rate of once every five seconds for ten minutes with your arms extended straight out to the sides and making clockwise circles with your left hand and counter-clockwise circles with your right at one rotation per second generates a force that can lift one ton six feet in the air and keep it there with no detectable means of support for one hour... that's pretty well quantified, but we still may not have the slightest clue why such a strange ritual would have that effect... and we could have a very nice model of how everything in the world seems to work EXCEPT for a collection of bizarre rituals with proven, quantified effects that don't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

If we know for a fact, incontrovertibly proven by repeated tests by many different people, that chanting "ooga booga boo" at a rate of once every five seconds for ten minutes with your arms extended straight out to the sides and making clockwise circles with your left hand and counter-clockwise circles with your right at one rotation per second generates a force that can lift one ton six feet in the air and keep it there with no detectable means of support for one hour... that's pretty well quantified

While it's pretty well qualified and the experiments prove that it does in fact work, I would argue that we still don't know how it works. But that's just linguistic problem I suppose.

To provide example: piece of wood is floating on water.

Why? Because it's lighter than water.

How? The water molecules are hitting it from below, generating force equal to the amount of water displaced by it. Because the piece of wood is lighter than water it displaced, the force is bigger than the gravitation force pulling it down. (Well ... obviously the forces will balance themselves by making piece of that wood stay above the water, but I think you get the idea.)

In this sense, "how" requires actually more detailed answer than "why". IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

In this sense, "how" requires actually more detailed answer than "why". IMHO.

You have a point. At first I thought it was the other way around but then I tried to swap them and couldn't make it work. Maybe I am too tired for my brain to work properly because Don Edwards' version also seems to work. Hm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

In this sense, "how" requires actually more detailed answer than "why". IMHO.

You have a point. At first I thought it was the other way around but then I tried to swap them and couldn't make it work. Maybe I am too tired for my brain to work properly because Don Edwards' version also seems to work. Hm.

It's difference between "knowing HOW to do it" and "knowing HOW it works".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

It's difference between "knowing HOW to do it" and "knowing HOW it works".

That's true. But that was how Don Edwards phrased it:

4 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Ah... there's understanding how it works, and then there's understanding why it works.

Both seem to work. I can't fully explain this with the simple rules of semantics I know but I suspect it is partly intent and partly phrasing. I do note that Don Edwards understood my original statement as 'how to do it' when I intended it to mean 'how it works.'

But this is getting waaaay off topic so maybe we should give it a rest. Magitech can live for another day and when we can fully explain it, it can quietly conflate into ordinary tech being none the poorer for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this